Minutes of the
109th Quarterly Meeting
and
28th Annual Meeting
of the
The meeting was called to
order at
UMRBA Representatives and
Alternates:
|
Gary
Clark |
|
|
Rick
Mollahan |
|
|
Martin
Konrad |
|
|
Bernie
Hoyer |
|
|
John
Fleig |
|
|
Dick
Vegors |
|
|
Tim
Schlagenhaft |
|
|
Dick
Lambert |
|
|
Dru Buntin |
|
|
Jim
Fischer |
|
Federal
UMRBA Liaisons:
|
Charles
Barton |
|
|
Bill
Franz |
|
|
Charlie
Wooley |
|
|
Mike
Jawson |
|
Others
in attendance:
|
Olivia
Dorothy |
Illinois Governor Pat Quinn |
|
John
Chick |
|
|
Bryan
Hopkins |
|
|
Janet
Sternburg |
|
|
Colonel
Tom O’Hara |
|
|
Elizabeth
Ivy |
|
|
Jeff
DeZellar |
|
|
Andrey Kravets |
|
|
Roger
Perk |
|
|
Chuck
Spitzack |
|
|
Ken
Barr |
|
|
Marvin
Hubbell |
|
|
Karen
Hagerty |
|
|
Leo
Keller |
|
|
Jack
Carr |
|
|
Brian
Johnson |
|
|
Jeff
Stamper |
|
|
Todd
Strole |
|
|
Steve
Ashby |
|
|
John
Goodin |
|
|
Tim
Henry |
|
|
Art
Spratlin |
|
|
Rick
Frietsche |
|
|
Rick
Nelson |
|
|
Joyce
Collins |
|
|
Matt
Mangan |
|
|
Leon
Carl |
|
|
Mark
Fuchs |
National Weather Service ( |
|
Jeff
Jacobs |
National Research Council |
|
Brad
Walker |
Izaak Walton League |
|
Diane
Herndon |
Monsanto |
|
Michael
Martin |
MCIRCC |
|
Vera
Bojic |
National Great Rivers
Research and |
|
Joseph
Britt |
Sand |
|
Mike
Bush |
|
|
Christine
Favilla |
Sierra Club |
|
Vince
Shay |
The Nature Conservancy |
|
Gretchen
Benjamin |
The Nature Conservancy |
|
Paul
Rohde |
Waterways Council, Inc. |
|
Gary
Loss |
CDM |
|
Tom
Boland |
MACTEC |
|
Don
Powell |
SEH |
|
Barb
Naramore |
|
|
Dave
Hokanson |
|
|
Kirsten
Mickelsen |
|
Announcements
Martin
Konrad announced that this would be his last meeting
representing
UMRBA
Vice Chair Gary Clark expressed the Board’s
appreciation to Konrad for his years of service, and
particularly for his past year as Chair.
On behalf of UMRBA,
Meeting
Minutes
Gary
Clark moved and Jim Fischer seconded a motion to approve the minutes of the
Executive
Director’s Report
§
UMRBA staff continue to coordinate with the ad hoc group of industry and environmental interests in advocating
for EMP and NESP. The group is revising
the joint fact sheet it developed last year and will again be seeking meetings
with committee staff and members’ offices.
Naramore expressed appreciation for the
efforts of the various partners in these efforts, including Waterways Council,
Inc., River Resource Alliance, The Nature Conservancy, and Audubon.
§
UMRBA and US EPA finalized an intergovernmental
personnel agreement (IPA) on January 15, 2009.
Under this agreement, Peg Donnelly of EPA Region 5 will be working on
assignment with UMRBA for the next two years.
The majority of Donnelly’s time will be devoted to the Water Quality
Task Force’s designated uses project, and a work plan has recently been
completed to guide her efforts. Donnelly
will remain stationed at Region 5, but will be visiting the states and other
key players during the course of her work.
§
In follow-up to the 2008 workshops on enhancing
coordination between water quality and ecosystem restoration programs, UMRBA
will be hosting a UMR biological indicators workshop this spring. USACE and US EPA are providing funding to
support this workshop. Invitations will
be issued shortly.
§
Also in follow-up to the 2008 workshops, Water Quality
Executive Committee Chair Marcia Willhite sent a
January 22 letter to Rock Island District Commander Colonel Robert Sinkler. The
correspondence expressed the WQEC’s interest in
engaging their staff in the ecosystem restoration objective-setting process and
asked USACE to provide further information regarding the process and the need
for water quality expertise.
§
The Interagency Levee Task Force (ILTF)
is considering options for ongoing regional and state-level interagency
coordination following the scheduled July 2009 sunset of the ILTF and its state
work groups. The ILTF is also developing
a comprehensive communications plan and advising a national policy review
designed to ensure consistency among regions for similar groups in the future.
Interstate
Diversion Consultation
Martin
Konrad explained that the Governors’ 1989 Upper
Mississippi River Basin Charter sets forth a notification and consultation
process for any new or increased water diversion out of the basin that would
exceed an average of 5 million gallons per day during any 30 day period. At their February annual meetings, UMRBA
members are to report on any qualifying diversion requests. The UMRBA member states reported as follows:
|
|
|
— |
no
diversions to report |
|
|
|
— |
no
diversions to report |
|
|
|
— |
no
diversions to report |
|
|
|
— |
no
diversions to report |
|
|
|
— |
no
diversions to report |
Konrad
directed Barb Naramore to send letters to the
Governors reporting the results of the annual diversion consultation.
NRC Report on Nutrient Controls
Jeff Jacobs provided a brief
background on the National Research Council (NRC), a working arm within the
National Academies of Science (NAS), that provides
independent scientific and technical advice to the federal government. The NRC typically executes its projects by
convening and staffing a project-specific committee comprised of volunteer
experts, explained Jacobs. He then
briefly described the background leading up to the NRC’s
recently released report entitled Nutrient
Control Actions for Improving Water Quality in the Mississippi River Basin and
Northern Gulf of Mexico. According
to Jacobs, US EPA approached the NRC shortly after it completed its 2007 report
on Mississippi River Water Quality, which had been funded by the McKnight
Foundation. Some of the 10 committee
members for the current report also participated on the panel for the previous
study. Jacobs also observed that the
current study was completed on a very fast time track, with the committee
meeting just three times over the 9-month study period.
The
committee was asked to address the following:
1)
Given the
state of scientific knowledge, and associated uncertainties, about nutrient and
sediment loadings and Gulf hypoxia, how might loading estimates and targets be
used to initiate pollutant control programs?
2)
What are the
alternative methods to allocate load reductions to tributaries, land uses, and
other source classifications?
3)
How should the
effectiveness of pollutant loading reduction strategies on the Gulf hypoxic
zone and states’ designated uses be documented?
Among
the committee’s findings, Jacobs highlighted the following:
§
Nine states (AR, IL, IN, IA, KY, MI, MO, OH, and TN)
contribute approximately 75% of all nitrogen and phosphorus loadings to the
northern
§
Point sources are estimated to account
for 10% of all nutrient loadings to the northern
§
Progress toward reducing hypoxia will
require acknowledging that there is a considerable time lag (≥ 10 years)
between nutrient reduction actions and water quality response in the Gulf.
§
Purposeful targeting of nutrient control
efforts toward areas of higher nutrient loadings will be essential. USDA and others should make projects in these
locations a priority.
§
EPA should require major municipal and
industrial point source dischargers to monitor nutrient concentrations (both
nitrogen and phosphorus) as a condition of NPDES permits.
Based
on its findings, Jacobs said the committee recommended that US EPA and USDA
jointly establish a Nutrient Control Implementation Initiative (NCII) designed
to demonstrate the ability to reduce nutrient loadings in priority watersheds,
evaluate local water quality benefits of nutrient controls, and evaluate the
cost effectiveness of various control options.
According to Jacobs, projects within the NCII would:
§
promote more systematic monitoring and
comparison of land and water conservation efforts;
§
provide a framework for implementing and
testing best management practices (BMPs) on a
basin-wide scale;
§
include pre-project planning and design,
facility installation, operation and maintenance, and water quality and land
use monitoring;
§
total approximately 25,000 acres and
coincide with watershed boundaries to the extent possible.
In addition, the committee recommended that NCII
projects be sited in watersheds with high loadings, where previous work has
been done and that are of interest to USDA, state, and local parties. In terms of financing, Jacobs said the
committee envisions the NCII pilot projects being funded primarily under
existing USDA conservation programs, with additional EPA Clean Water Act
funding, as well as state, private sector, and foundation resources.
Jacobs explained that the committee recognizes the
importance of remaining scientific uncertainties, but also believes there is
sufficient knowledge to take action.
Thus, the report recommends the agencies select an interim goal for load
reductions as the first stage in an adaptive and incremental process. It further calls for targeting watersheds for
load reductions and adopting an allocation formula for interim reductions that
balances equity and cost-effectiveness.
In addition, the committee stressed the importance of allowing credit
for past progress and encouraging market-based approaches to promote flexibility
in achieving reductions. While
acknowledging the important water quality work of others, the committee also
concludes that no existing entity has the resources needed to administer the
NCII and instead recommends that US EPA and USDA jointly administer a
Jacobs also said US EPA has expressed interest in
having the NRC extend the term of the committee that developed the report, with
the same membership, to provide ongoing advice.
In response to a question from Mike Jawson, Jacobs said the report addresses USDA’s
Conservation Effects Assessment Program as current activity that could serve as
a model. Bryan Hopkins observed that the
time lags from management intervention to load reduction can greatly exceed 10
years even on a local level. He also
noted that significant load modeling work remains to be done on the sub-basin
level. Given these uncertainties, he
questioned whether we are really ready to select sub-basins for load reduction
targeting. Jacobs acknowledged the
importance of the uncertainties
Tim Schlagenhaft asked
whether USDA has been involved in discussing the potential to target its
conservation programs for nutrient reduction purposes. Jacobs said USDA has generally been receptive
to the ideas raised in the report, and expressed hope that USDA might be
involved more directly in any follow-on work undertaken by the NRC. In response to a question from Mike Bush,
Jacobs acknowledged that large floods can have tremendous effects on loadings.
John Goodin expressed US
EPA’s thanks to Jacobs for the committee’s excellent work. Goodin explained
that, through the use of the Clean Water Act and other federal programs, the
federal agencies are looking for opportunities to support and drive the states’
work related to nutrient reduction. He
offered the following perspectives regarding the NRC committee’s report:
1.
The study lays out some very important
conclusions, particularly regarding agency roles and load allocations.
2.
3.
Under the Clean Water Act, there is a mix
of actions, both voluntary and regulatory, that can be used to support nutrient
reduction.
Goodin
said that, over the last few months, EPA has been reviewing specific elements
of the Clean Water act that can be used to further the Hypoxia Action Plan’s
goals. Identified options include:
Goodin
also stressed the importance of measuring outcomes and developing effective
ways of communicating these results to the public.
Joe
Britt observed that some agricultural groups will undoubtedly be concerned that
nutrient reduction efforts will lead to regulation. Goodin said US EPA
is simply examining all of the tools it has available under the Clean Water Act
to address the problem of nutrients. He
observed that, historically, not all of these tools have been used as
effectively as they might have been.
Martin
Konrad asked who is charged with bringing US EPA and
USDA together to act on the NRC report.
Jacobs emphasized that NRC is strictly an advisory body. As such, it does not monitor implementation
of its recommendations. Goodin said US EPA and USDA staff have been meeting
regularly and will jointly brief the USDA leadership within the next couple of
weeks about the report and development of a federal nutrient reduction
strategy.
Nature Conservancy’s Monsanto-Funded
Nutrient and Sediment Reduction Demonstration Project
Vince
Shay briefly described The Nature Conservancy’s
Shay
explained that TNC’s traditional approach of buying
land is not viable when the goal is to protect and restore a large aquatic
ecosystem. Targeted best management
practices (BMPs) offer promise, according to Shay; but
he emphasized that traditional BMPs focused on soil
erosion will not necessarily yield the desired water quality results. Thus, with financial support from Monsanto,
TNC is working with its partners to develop and test practices that will
support aquatic ecosystem restoration.
Practices will be tested, targeted, and applied in four watersheds —
i.e.,
Diane
Herndon explained that Monsanto is exclusively an agricultural
company, and focuses primarily on seeds and biotechnology rather than
agricultural chemicals. Through its
Sustainable Yield Initiative, Monsanto is seeking to increase yields, reduce
resource use, and improve farmers’ lives.
In addition to TNC and other conservation groups, Herndon explained that
Monsanto is involving grower organizations and groups such as the National
Fertilizer Institute in its efforts. She
expressed optimism that, by bringing the right partners together, effective
ways will be identified to keep nutrients on the farm.
In
response to a question from Barb Naramore, Shay said
the kinds of practices being evaluated include 2-stage ditches, fall cover,
treatment wetlands, and wood chip bio-reactors.
TNC will employ paired watershed studies where possible. He explained that, with the project’s 3-year
funding, lag time, and other factors, the effects of an experimental measure in
even a 5,000 acre watershed may not be measurable. Therefore, TNC will also be employing
edge-of-field measurements. Shay said
TNC is working with a wide range of partners on these projects, filling in gaps
in funding and capabilities where needed.
As such, the landowner agreements take a range of forms. In response to a question form Tim Schlagenhaft, Shay explained that the monitoring
responsibilities for the individual projects vary, depending on the particulars
of that project. TNC will submit annual
reports to Monsanto, as well as a comprehensive project report at the end of
the three years.
Navigation and Ecosystem Sustainability
Program
Funding Status — Chuck Spitzack reported that NESP is
currently operating under continuing resolution (CR) funding of $3
million. The CR runs through March 6,
2009. Spitzack
observed that this is NESP’s lowest rate of funding
since Congress started providing preconstruction engineering and design (PED)
funds for NESP in FY 05. He said it
remains to be seen what, if any, additional FY 09 money Congress will provide
for NESP as part of the omnibus measure that is anticipated to follow
the CR. Also of note, the recently
enacted stimulus package precludes construction general funding for new
projects, including NESP, according to Spitzack.
Spitzack
also reported that NESP will have obligated approximately 60 percent of its CR
funds by March 6. Barb Naramore noted that this is considerably below the
obligation rate the Corps had been estimating earlier in the fiscal year. Spitzack attributed
this to competing demands for staff within the Corps, citing
June 2009 Implementation Report to Congress — Spitzack explained that the NESP authorization in WRDA 07
requires periodic reports to Congress on implementation of the ecosystem
restoration component. The reports are
to address baselines, milestones, goals, and priorities for the restoration
projects and measure progress in meeting the goals. The first implementation report is due to the
House and Senate authorizing committees by June 30, 2009, with subsequent reports
every four years thereafter.
Spitzack
reported that the Corps has contracted with Dan McGuiness and Associates to
assist in drafting the first report.
McGuiness will present a draft outline to the NECC at its February 19
meeting, and a draft report will be circulated for partner review in mid- to
late April. The draft will then be
discussed at the May quarterly meetings, with a final draft going to Corps
Headquarters in mid-June.
Spitzack
said the ongoing ecosystem-objective setting process will be an important
element of the June report. He explained
that planning teams are currently working actively on the four major floodplain
reaches — i.e., Upper Impounded, Lower Impounded,
Because
NESP has thus far received only PED funding, Spitzack
observed that this first implementation report will not, of course, include any
completed project reports. Spitzack acknowledged that the schedule for developing the
report is quite tight, but said he would like to meet the deadline and use the
report as an opportunity to communicate NESP’s readiness
to implement.
River Advisory Panel Update — Elizabeth Ivy distributed General Walsh’s Advisory
Panel (AP) proposal, which was transmitted to Corps Headquarters on February
11, 2009. She briefly reviewed the 2007
Water Resources Development Act (WRDA 07) provisions related to the NESP AP,
explaining that the panel is charged with:
§
providing “independent guidance” in the
development of each implementation report, and
§
consulting in the development of a system
to rank the proposed ecosystem restoration projects.
She
noted that the Corps is interpreting “independent guidance” as meaning
independent from the Corps, but not as precluding AP members’ involvement in
the NESP restoration program.
Per
WRDA 07, the AP will include:
§
State resource agencies (or other
gubernatorial designee) — one from each of the five states;
§
one representative each from
§
affected landowners — one representative;
§
conservation and environmental advocacy groups — two
representatives; and
§
agriculture and industry groups — two representatives.
Ivy
explained that General Walsh’s proposal comes in response to the ASA(CW)’s NESP implementation guidance, which requested
USACE recommendations on how the AP should be established, the AP’s specific
roles and responsibilities, its operation in conjunction with the ASA(CW)’s
role, and the AP’s funding. Under
General Walsh’s proposal, the MVD Commander would chair the AP on behalf of the
ASA (CW), and members would fund their own participation.
To
facilitate the AP’s decision-making and coordination with Congress and OMB, the
proposal calls for the other federal agencies to be represented at the regional
director level or higher, with the states represented at the department
director level. Ivy emphasized that
General Walsh’s proposal is subject to further change by Corps Headquarters and
the ASA(CW).
She explained that the proposal is currently at the staff level within
Corps Headquarters, having been submitted to the MVD Regional Integration Team
(RIT) last week.
Spitzack
explained that, until the AP is stood up, the Corps will continue to coordinate
reach objective-setting and other NESP restoration program matters through the
NECC.
In
response to a question from Martin Konrad, Ivy and
Charles Barton said it is difficult to estimate how long it will be before the ASA(CW) acts on the AP proposal. They suggested it would likely be a minimum
of six to eight weeks.
Tim Schlagenhaft observed that the partners worked hard on
joint recommendations regarding the AP, and that those partner recommendations
differ substantially from General Walsh’s proposal in several important
respects. In particular, Schlagenhaft emphasized that the elevated AP would not be
well-suited to addressing program implementation details that will need to be
coordinated with the partnership if NESP is to be successful. He cautioned the Corps not to wait too long
to establish a “technical implementation mechanism” to address these
needs. Ivy said she fully expects that
the AP will want such a group, but said General Walsh believes that formation
of any technical groups should be left to the AP. In the interim, Spitzack
emphasized that the Corps will continue to coordinate with the partners through
NECC.
Dru Buntin said he understands and appreciates the General’s
thinking in wanting to elevate the level of representation on the AP. However, he observed that the AP’s actual
charge under the NESP authority (i.e., guiding the implementation reports and
developing a project ranking system) would not make particularly effective use
of state department directors and federal regional agency heads. He said these tasks will require people who
are conversant with both the technical and policy questions at issue. Buntin asked the
Corps to notify UMRBA when the ASA(CW) sends the AP solicitation
letters to the Governors.
Jim
Fischer concurred with Buntin’s and Schlagenhaft’s observations. He said
Middle
Brian
Johnson explained that the Middle Mississippi River was selected as one of five
regional studies in the nation to be conducted at 100 percent federal
expense. The study area was defined as
approximately 500,000 acres of floodplain corridor on the Middle Mississippi. Approximately 50 agencies and groups came
together and identified three natural resource focuses for the study:
1)
develop a science-based regional restoration planning and
prioritization tool,
2)
set regional goals and objectives, and
3)
complete reach assessments.
According
to Johnson, major issues and concerns on the Middle Mississippi include habitat
loss, lack of connectivity, demand for river-based
recreation, need for agricultural viability, need for reliable navigation, and
desire for ecosystem restoration. A
landscape-level planning tool was developed using hydrogeomorphic
methodology (HGM). Johnson explained
that the tool integrates GIS-based information concerning soils, geomorphology,
topography, climate, flood frequency, and plant and animal communities. The tool can inform restoration planning and
prioritization by quantifying prior and existing habitat, identifying
restoration potential, and providing a scientific basis for the selection of
restoration targets.
On the
topic of setting regional goals and objectives, Johnson explained that the
Corridor Study sought to build on previous work by the Middle Mississippi River
Partnership (MMRP). Working with the
MMRP and other stakeholders, five reaches were established, each with a
different entity providing coordination.
Workshops were used to set objectives and develop cooperative strategies
to accomplish those objectives. The
groups also attempted to identify metrics for measuring success and articulated
next steps. Written assessments for each
of the five reaches will identify information needs and opportunities in each
reach.
Johnson
characterized the Corridor Study as a very effective partnership effort. Among the lessons learned, Johnson
highlighted the need for regional leadership, the value of an organization like
the MMRP, the slow pace of collaboration, limited understanding of other
agencies’ programs and authorities, and the importance of setting realistic
expectations.
Jim
Fischer asked how much of the restoration potential identified through the HGM
is in private ownership. Johnson said
most of the area for potential restoration is privately held on the Middle
Mississippi. He explained that the value
of the HGM tool is in focusing efforts.
For example, if you want to restore or protect bottomland hardwoods, HGM
can tell you where, specifically, you should be looking.
Dick
Lambert asked what factors drove the deterioration of habitat on the Middle
Mississippi. Johnson cited isolation of
the river floodplain to support agricultural production. Joyce Collins agreed that this was a major
factor, but also said establishment and maintenance of the 9-foot channel
project had a profound impact on aquatic resources. Collins also observed that the Corridor Study’s
HGM model is terrestrially oriented and would need to be extended if the
partners want to account more fully for aquatic resources.
Visions of Sustainable
John
Chick announced that the National Great Rivers Research and
1)
ecosystem services and economic value;
2)
floodplain connectivity, flood control, and hydrologic regime;
3)
ethanol production; and
4)
clean water uses and threats.
Chick
emphasized that the conference is organized to maximize discussion and working
time, with those discussions catalyzed by a series of speakers and panel
discussions. He encouraged the UMRBA and
others to consider various opportunities for involvement, including attending
the conference, participating as panelists or facilitators, and supporting high
level participation in the policy forum slated for the conference’s final day.
Federal Agency Updates — Stimulus
Measures, FY 10 Budget, and Agency Leadership News
Corps of Engineers — Charles Barton reported that President Obama
is expected to release his FY 10 budget request in mid-April. Until the budget is formally released,
federal agencies are not at liberty to discuss the potential details of the
request. The Corps, along with much of the
federal government, is operating under a continuing resolution that runs through
March 6, 2009. Thus, full year FY 09
funding levels are still not yet known.
Barton said the expectation is that Congress will likely enact an
omnibus measure to fund agencies for the balance of the fiscal year. He also noted that President Bush’s FY 09
request for MVD projects and programs totaled $716 million, while the House and
Senate Appropriations Committees approved $787 and $948 million,
respectively.
Regarding
the stimulus measure, Barton reported that the Corps’ civil works program received
a total of $4.6 billion, with military construction receiving more than $6
billion. The stimulus bill identified
specific amounts for the Corps’ major accounts (e.g., investigations and
construction), but left further determinations to the Administration. Corps Headquarters is currently working to
develop its proposal for allocating the civil works funding to specific
projects and programs. In response to a
question from Barb Naramore, Barton said the decision
criteria include ability to let contracts quickly and the prohibition on new
starts.
Environmental Protection Agency — Bill Franz said EPA’s water priorities include 1)
ensuring that drinking water is safe and 2) restoring and maintaining oceans
and watersheds, and their aquatic ecosystems, for the benefit of human health,
economic and recreation activity, and habitat.
Under the current continuing resolution, Franz said EPA’s clean and safe
water programs are being funded at about two-thirds of their FY 08 level —
i.e.., $1.8 billion under the CR vs. $2.9 billion in FY 08. He observed, however, that these FY 09
funding levels are expected to come up when EPA is funded for the balance of
the year.
Franz
also reported that EPA’s draft FY 10-14 Strategic Plan still includes general
language, though not specific sub-objectives, related to water quality efforts
on the
In
response to a question from Naramore, Franz said naming
EPA’s Assistant Administrator for Water and Regional Administrators (RAs) may
still take some time. Art Spratlin said that, when there is a change in party, Region
7 has not typically seen its new RA until the fall. In response to a question from Jim Fischer,
Franz said EPA is also emphasizing contract readiness in allocating its
stimulus funding.
Fish and Wildlife Service — Charlie Wooley reported
that the Fish and Wildlife Service will receive approximately $280 million
under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (aka
stimulus bill). Of this amount, Region 3
will likely receive approximately $40 million.
The Service is seeking to obligate the majority of the stimulus funds
within four months, with an emphasis on jobs creation. Projects will include refuge and hatchery
maintenance; mission critical capital improvements; trails, roads, and bridges;
habitat restoration; and energy efficiency measures at facilities.
Wooley
briefly reviewed the Service’s budget structure, including the major resource
management accounts of ecological services, refuges, and fisheries. Under the continuing resolution, the Service
is being funded at its FY 08 levels, minus any earmarks. This includes $259 million for ecological
services, $433 million for refuges, and $126 million for fisheries.
Regarding
FY 10, Wooley reported that the Service recently
received its OMB passback. He also briefly reviewed FY 09 funding levels
under the Service’s permanent appropriations, which include several important
pass thrus to the states. Sport Fish Restoration is funded at $467
million in FY 09, and Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration is receiving $348
million. The UMR states are expected to
receive $32 million and $25 million under these two programs, respectively, in
FY 09.
Wooley
announced that Tom Melius is the Service’s new
Regional Director for Region 3. He also
highlighted the UMR-related work of the Service’s
The
Service has 11 refuges on, or near, the UMRS, totaling 300,000 acres and
hosting more than 4 million visitors per year.
The FY 09 base budget for these UMRS refuges is estimated at $8.5
million, which would represent flat funding from FY 08. In addition, the refuges will receive $1.7
million in storm/flood supplemental funds.
Wooley said it is not yet known what the UMRS
refuges will receive from the stimulus package.
UMRS refuge priorities for FY 09 include ongoing implementation of the
Comprehensive Conservation Plans (CCPs), repairs from
the 2007 storms and 2008 flood, stimulus package projects, ongoing EMP
projects, a reed canary grass adaptive management project, a Pool 6 drawdown,
an ongoing forest inventory with the Corps, and acquisition of 600-800 acres. In addition, Wooley
reported that the Service expects a Wetland of International Importance
designation under the Ramsar Convention in 2009.
Region
3’s UMRS-related fisheries operations include Fisheries Resources offices in
U.S. Geological Survey — Mike Jawson reported that
USGS is also operating under the continuing resolution that runs thru March
6. He said the consensus expectation is
that an omnibus measure would likely fund USGS at a higher level than it is
receiving under the continuing resolution.
Jawson said Suzette Kimball is serving as
Acting Director of USGS. He also
highlighted Secretary Salazar’s announced priorities for the Interior
Department, including energy, climate change, ethics, and ensuring that the
department focuses on the entire country.
Jawson reviewed USGS’s
new regional structure, explaining that the goal of the reorganization was to
enhance coordination among USGS’s four disciplines by
bringing them together under the same regional structure. Unfortunately, this has also resulted in the
UMR states being split among three regions — i.e.,
Jawson
briefly highlighted accomplishments and ongoing work at the UMR states’ Water
Science Centers (WSCs) as well as UMESC. Several centers are engaged in research
related to emerging contaminants, nutrients, and sediment. This includes the Wisconsin WSC’s SPARROW nutrient modeling effort and the Minnesota WSC’s work with UMESC and the National Park Service on
nutrient processes in backwaters. Jawson noted that endocrine disruptor studies are finding
levels in the environment that produce demonstrable effects on mussels and
other biota.
Jawson
also reported that there is a proposal to fund UMESC to research Asian carp
control options. While this is not a
USGS proposal, Jawson observed that UMESC has a long
history with invasives control (e.g., the lampricide used to control the sea lamprey in the
Jawson
explained that UMESC’s overall research and
monitoring themes include large river ecosystems, geospatial sciences and
decision support systems, invasive species control, fisheries management
chemical and drug development and registration, endangered species, and
contaminant effects on wildlife. Jawson explained that UMESC’s staff function in teams, which work across the theme
areas. Martin Konrad
asked whether UMESC’s new regional structure with its
division of the UMR states, is affecting UMESC’s
work. Jawson
said UMESC is able to work effectively across the regional boundaries. Leon Carl, director of the Midwest Region,
said the three regions are working on ways to increase their focus on the
Administrative Issues
Adoption of New Administrative Policies — Barb Naramore announced
that the Board’s consideration of new administrative policies is being deferred
to UMRBA’s May 19, 2009 meeting.
FY 09 Budget Revisions — Martin Konrad indicated
that UMRBA needs to amend its FY 09 budget to reflect expenses and revenue
associated with the Biological Indicators workshop. Dru Buntin moved, and Gary Clark seconded, a motion to amend UMRBA’s FY 09 budget as follows:
§
+$14,800 in contract and grant income to
reflect the US EPA workshop grant
§
+$6,700 in biological indicators
expenses, broken out between travel ($1,200), contractual ($3,000), and
other ($2,500)
The
motion carried unanimously. Naramore explained that the remaining expenses for the
workshop are permanent staff-related and are thus already captured in UMRBA’s FY 09 budget.
Election of Officers — Tim Schlagenhaft moved nominations of Gary
Clark to serve as UMRBA Chair and Todd Ambs to serve
as UMRBA Vice Chair.
Buntin seconded the motion. Konrad noted that,
while not present, Ambs has been consulted and is
willing to serve as Vice Chair. The
motion carried unanimously.
Future Meeting Schedule — Naramore reported that
the next two quarterly meeting series are scheduled for May 19-21, 2009 in the
Twin Cities and August 4-6, 2009 in
With
no further business, the meeting adjourned at 2:30 p.m.